Wikipedia hacks – from Black Hat SEO to CIA.
The idea of “anyone can share†made Wikipedia stunning success. 4,397,536 inbound links, 294,000,000 results for wikipedia, no site outranks almighty Wiki. PhDs, engineers, mathematicians and bored individuals have found a wonderful hobby – sharing the knowledge. It seems Wiki dominates half of all searches on Google and both sides are happy. Wiki gets its traffic, Google shows relevant results, and on top of it people find what they are looking for… or do they?
SEO Black Hat love Wiki.
In a wonderful article on SEO moz The Dark Side of Wikipedia, randfish details tactics used by SEOs to manipulate beloved Wiki, outlining tricks deployed by black hatters and grey mixers, in attempts to carry some of Wikipedias’ power to their domain. You have to appreciate the level of innovation.
“Wiki-Hacker created several accounts on different IPs, then vandalized a number of pages, mostly small and under-the-radar, appearing to look like a competitor (adding links, references, promotional content, etc). He then “investigated” these pages through his trusted account, “found” the “spammers,” removed their content, and was praised by some other community editors. Later, he used the newfound trust to create subtle, but effective references for his own client.â€
Account buys, competitive spam, promotion, links – wiki hacks are ingenious. The amount of effort put forth by participants is staggering and as bad as it might sound, it has earned them the unofficial license to promote.
“…….popular project page called WikiProject Spam, where a “spamstar of glory” (yes, seriously) is awarded for stopping spammers on Wikipedia. A fairly immense to-do list exists on this page, and it’s actually one of the Wiki-Hackers’ most feared pages. Unfortunately, it’s also a tool – Wiki-Hackers who want information removed or who want to build up the “trust” of their own accounts will actually become spam investigators and reporters. One of the best ways to reach administrator level is actually to catch some of the “trusted” accounts that are actually other Wiki-Hackers, and thus the community of Wiki-Hackers is not on particularly good terms with one another. Turning in other hackers puts you above suspicion in a way that few other actions on Wikipedia can, and thus, it’s one of the holy grails of the infiltrator-style hackers.â€
The intrigues spin as in a political thriller taking the observers on the joyous ride as they observe the battles from a distance.
It does not stop at SEO.
Speaking of politics, a very interesting tool called wikiscanner was released by Virgil Griffith, neural-systems graduate student. Wikiscanner tracks anonymous edits on Wikipedia by I.P. address, which sometimes lead to some very controversial places. According to an article on wired.com by John Borland, Diebold was caught red handed deleting material critical of itself. Diebold is the firm that supplies electronic voting platforms to the US govt., which received vast criticism over the years.
Another case according to BBC, involved CIA operatives vandalizing and correcting articles about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Reuters had reported them editing Iraq and Guantanamo entries.
The changes may violate Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday. – Reuters.
So what is Wikipedia in reality? Though a wonderful source, it has become a playground for powerful interests and SEO black hatters. I do not want to put a bad face on Wiki and believe that editors, who sacrifice their own time and put immense efforts to keep the online encyclopedia going deserve medals of honor from us for the hard work they have and continue to do, however Wikipedia should not be trusted in its entirety and it is always a good idea to check multiple sources.
Permalink Comments Back to Top Back to Homepage

